Global Warming: Doom or Fraud? IPCC Scrutinized

A few days ago, a fellow by the name of Andrew Simms from England published a report that said we may have just 100 months to prevent “uncontrolled global warming.” This obviously suggests that man has the ability to control the earth’s temperatures. That in itself is interesting. Here is his report and a description of Andrew Simms provided at the end of the paper

Andrew Simms is policy director of the New Economics Foundation (nef), a founder member of the Green New Deal Group, and co-author of its report: A Green New Deal. The report can be downloaded from nef’s website

Now, much of the Global Warming hysteria is based on the IPCC and their report on the subject. In that report, they used a “hockey stick” graph that supposedly showed the earth’s temperatures over many centuries that featured a sharp rise in the last century. However, that data has been discredited a number of times, yet, it made it into the report. One of the naysayers is David Legate, who published a summary of his opposition.

David R. Legates is Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

To the left is a comparison of graphs. The one that is different from the “hockey stick” is one that includes the data from the “mini ice-age” as well as the period that people claim was the medieval warming period during which Greenland got its name and the Vikings were farming on what is now a frozen tundra. It was always curious to me how the IPCC graph did not reflect both of these periods, particularly the mini-ice age which is well documented and is at least partly responsible for the immigration to America in the 17th and 18th centuries. Note that it suggests it was much warmer during the time of the vikings than today. How can these graphs be so different?

There are a number of scientists who contend that the entire IPCC process is flawed and filled with bias. The claim is that they do not allow independent review, ignore accepted procedures for presenting work by such things as not allowing for peer review, using unpublished reports that have not been scrutinized and ignoring data that does not fit their hypothesis. David Holland published in 2007 a rather lengthy report in 2007 that addressed the inherent flaws with the IPCC and concluded that:

“the IPCC has neither structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science.”

If you care, read this report that was published in Volume 18, Energy and Environment 2007 The link is followed by a brief description of Mr. Holland.

Before we jump on the bandwagon, we need to look at all of the facts. If you read enough, you will find that it’s not “settled” and there is no “consensus” and that the UN panel may have deliberately phonied up data and ignored or rejected any opposition to what they wanted to report. That’s not to say they are necessarily wrong, but it is to say that the IPCC apparently, in the view of many people in the science community, has such a wrong process that some suggest their methods would fail even a freshman science course and that they do not follow accepted protocol of review. If that is the case, then it is not remotely possible for them to claim there is consensus.

To be fair, there are others who are pooh-poohing those who dispute the “hockey stick” graph and they have been busy with reports of their own. Perhaps we need to allow the process of peer review and analysis before we make proclamations like Mr. Simms or even Prince Charles just a few months ago. Here is a response from a group that is using their site to spread their “truth” regarding global warming to people like Holland and Legates whose work they claim is part of a “myth.”

Very well researched and interesting blog post. Thank you for trying to bring a bit of clarity. IPCC needs to follow the accepted protocol of research. If they don’t we may have what could only be called the “Cassandra Effect” – we may end up with a severe case of Global Warming but no one will believe them.

You know what….you are absolutely correct. I’ve read many transcripts from a symposium in which many of the speakers brought up the lack of proper methodology. While what you have stated may have been part of the concern, no one specifically stated that. So, what if it’s all true but, because they cut corners and operated in the condescending and autocratic manner that I believe they are doing, the red flags that I see distract from the message? Thank you for your input. Very insightful.